"Let no freedom be allowed to novelty, because it is not fitting that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture."
-- Pope Sixtus III

Saturday, July 29, 2017

Charlie Gard was not a victim of cruel fate. At best, he was the victim of people who don't know the difference between good and evil and so chose evil for Charlie and his parents, thinking it was good. At worst, Charlie was murdered by people who know all too well what evil is and enjoy inflicting it upon people who can't or won't fight back.God did not kill Charlie, kiddies, we did. Those of us who have allowed such vileness to become normal have as much of his blood on our hands as those who refused to allow his parents escape to their socialist shithole and those who pulled the plug on his ventilator.Charlie's illness was a gift from God, as all such unfortunate things are. Charlie's life was an opportunity for everyone to prove how much we love unconditionally. Every damnable one of us has been found wanting.May God have mercy on our immortal souls. Charlie's good. He now rejoices in the peace and glory for which all men are created. I hope and pray I get to shake his hand one day.No doubt he and Terri Schiavo are comparing notes and shaking their heads at our folly.

Death ofCharlie Gard

August 4, 2016 - July 28, 2017

British baby caught the world's attention as he struggled with a rare disorder.

Charlie Gard, the British baby who caught the world’s attention as he struggled with a rare genetic disorder while his parents fought the courts for the right to place him on an experimental treatment plan, died on Friday, July 28, 2017, according to The Guardian.Charlie spent much of his short life in a hospital bed at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) in London on life support machines, unable to hear, see or breathe on his own. Born August 4, 2016, he initially appeared to be a perfect, healthy baby. But within weeks, he began to exhibit symptoms that would lead doctors to diagnose him with infantile onset encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS). The first of the symptoms that drove his parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, to take him to the doctor was a delay in weight gain. By the time Charlie was hospitalized in mid-October, he had already begun to undergo brain damage.Charlie’s parents had hope that his condition was reversible. An experimental treatment, nucleoside bypass therapy (NBT), was available in the U.S., though it had never been tested on Charlie’s extremely rare condition. It did show promise with patients suffering from a similar disorder, one that attacks just the muscles – unlike Charlie’s, which also affected the brain and other organs.Yates and Gard felt confident enough about the treatment that they began a crowdfunding campaign to raise money for transportation and treatments. Within two months, they had raised £1.3 million and were ready to take Charlie to America. But they were blocked by British courts: GOSH had considered offering the experimental treatment to Charlie, but it was determined that his condition had already progressed beyond the point of reversibility, and his brain damage was too severe to be helped. GOSH’s doctors, in consultation with other experts, decided that Charlie should be taken off life support and allowed to die with dignity.Yates and Gard disagreed with this analysis and were determined to fight for their son’s life, so they took the case to England’s High Court. Justice Nicholas Francis sided with the doctors, ruling that Charlie had no chance of positive quality of life and should be removed from life support. His parents appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which also ruled with the doctors’ decision.As Charlie’s parents protested the rulings and continued to insist that they should be allowed to fight for their son’s life however they could, they began making international news. World leaders weighed in, with both Pope Francis and U.S. President Donald Trump offering to help Charlie obtain treatment.Dr. Michio Hirano, the U.S. doctor whose lab was developing the experimental treatment, was allowed to examine Charlie in mid-July amidst rumors of new evidence in support of the treatment. His diagnosis was that the damage to Charlie’s brain and muscles had progressed past the point of no return, and that the experimental treatment had no chance of helping him.In a subsequent statement, Yates and Gard announced their decision that it was no longer in Charlie’s best interest to continue pursuing treatment, and that they would spend the child’s final moments with him in hospice care.“One little boy has brought the world together,” they said, “and whatever people’s opinions are, no one can deny the impact our beautiful son has had on the world and his legacy will never ever die. Charlie has had a greater impact on and touched more people in this world in his 11 months than many people do in a life time. We could not have more love and pride for our beautiful boy. His body, heart and soul may soon be gone, but his spirit will live on for eternity and he will make a difference to people’s lives for years to come.” We invite you to share condolences for Charlie Gard in our Guest Book.

SPOILER ALERT: ALL OF THEM!Scientists successfully edited the DNA of multiple embryos for the first time in the United States, according to a research team from Oregon Health and Science University in Portland.Dr. Shoukhrat Mitalipov, head of the university's Center for Embryonic Cell and Gene Therapy, led the experiments, which used the gene-altering technology CRISPR to alter the DNA of a large number of one-cell embryos that could potentially develop into living humans if implanted in a womb. While not the first to edit human embryos, Mitalipov's research was able to surpass previous issues with "off-target" editing by injecting CRISPR into the eggs at the same time that they were fertilized with sperm, MIT Technology Review reports. The embryos were only allowed to grow for a few days, (See, kiddies? When you manipulate language, you can literally get away with murder. Who cares a whit about "embryos"? The eggs you had for breakfast were embryos, for crying out loud. You can hide from the fact this is the wholesale murder of children, but you cannot run from the consequences of it. - F.G.) but the experiments set a milestone toward the development and birth of the first genetically-modified babies. The practice of altering the genes, referred to as "germline engineering," would enable scientists to eradicate or correct genes linked to inherited diseases and further keep the diseases from affecting future generations. Despite cautions that genome editing could lead to weapons of mass destruction or designer babies, a report released in February by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine gave the green light toward gene editing, referring to it as "a realistic possibility that deserves serious consideration.”

Unless you happen to be one of the kids thrown in the trash, of course...

From Personhood.org comes the story of a 2014 attempt in Georgia to protect all humans from those ravenous trashcans (It failed to pass.)...

HISTORY: The bill is based upon a bill passed in Louisiana in 1986. The Louisiana bill establishes all in vitro embryos as "juridical persons". There has been NO legal challenge to it in 23 years. The language has been updated to reflect changes in biomedical technology and medical standards since 1986.

NEED: It is apparent from the recent birth of octuplets to a southern California woman, that the fertility industry needs governmental oversight. This industry is one of the MOST lucrative medical fields and among the LEAST regulated! This results in a serious compromise to the Standard of Care for the women and children involved. With Bio-tech industries coming to Georgia, NOW is the time to develop regulatory oversight that would protect our women and children.OBJECTIVES: 1.To recognize all human embryos as having the legal right to life and legal protection under the laws of the State of Ga.

2.To provide that it shall be unlawful for any person or entity to intentionally or knowingly create or attempt to create an in vitro human embryo by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm.

3.To provide for standards for physicians and facilities performing in vitro fertilizations.INTENDED CONSEQUENCE: In the interest of reducing the risk of complications for both the mother and the transferred embryos, including the risk of preterm birth associated with higher-order multiple gestations, a person or entity performing in vitro fertilization shall limit the number of embryos created in a single cycle to the number to be transferred in that cycle, thereby preventing what has recently occured in California with the woman who bore octuplets.LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Nothing in this article shall be construed to affect conduct relating to abortion; provided, however, that nothing in this article shall be construed or implied to recognize any independent right to abortion under the laws of this state.

2. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create or recognize any independent right to engage in the practice of in vitro fertilization or to create in vitro human embryos by any means.Contacts: Daniel Becker President Georgia Right to Life 678-524-9504 Mike Griffin Legislative Director Georgia Right to Life 706-436-2646

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT To amend Chapter 7 of Title 19 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to the parent and child relationship generally, so as to provide for a short title; to provide for definitions; to provide that it shall be unlawful for any person or entity to intentionally or knowingly create or attempt to create an in vitro human embryo by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm; to provide that it shall be unlawful or any person or entity to intentionally or knowingly create or attempt to create a human-animal hybrid, to transfer a human embryo into a nonhuman womb, and to transfer a nonhuman embryo into a human womb; to provide for standards for physicians and facilities performing in vitro fertilizations; to provide for judicial standards; to provide for related matters; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA: SECTION 1. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos Act." SECTION 2. Chapter 7 of Title 19 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, related to the parent and child relationship generally, is amended by adding a new article to read as follows: ARTICLE 4 19-7-60. For purposes of this article, the term: (1) 'Donor' means an individual from whose body gametes were obtained, or an individual from whose body cells or tissues were obtained for the purpose of creating gametes or human embryos, whether for valuable consideration or not. (2) 'Gamete' means an egg (oocyte) or sperm. (3) 'Human embryo' means an organism with a human or predominantly human genetic constitution from the single-celled stage to approximately eight weeks development that is derived by fertilization (in vitro or in utero), parthenogenesis, cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer), or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells. (4) 'In vitro' means outside the human body. (5) 'In vitro fertilization' means the formation of a human embryo outside the human body by union of human egg(s) with human sperm. (6) 'In vitro human embryo' means a human embryo created outside the human body. (7) 'Transfer' means the placement of a human embryo into the body of a woman. (8) 'Valuable consideration' means financial gain or advantage, including cash, in-kind payments, reimbursement for any costs incurred in connection with the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer, or donation of human gametes, including lost wages of the donor, as well as any other consideration.(9) ‘Human animal hybrid’ means any of the following: (a) A human embryo into which a nonhuman cell or a component of a nonhuman cell is introduced so that it is uncertain whether the human embryo is a member of the species homo sapiens; (b) A hybrid human-animal embryo produced by fertilizing a human egg with a nonhuman sperm; (c) A hybrid human-animal embryo produced by fertilizing a nonhuman egg with a human sperm; (d) An embryo produced by introducing a nonhuman nucleus into a human egg; (e) An embryo produced by introducing a human nucleus into a nonhuman egg; (f) An embryo containing at least haploid sets of chromosomes from both a human and a nonhuman life form; (g) A nonhuman life form engineered with the intention of generating functional human gametes within the body of a nonhuman life form; (h) A nonhuman life form engineered such that it contains a human brain or a brain derived wholly from human neural tissues. 19-7-61. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to intentionally or knowingly create or attempt to create an in vitro human embryo by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm. (b) The creation of an in vitro human embryo shall be solely for the purpose of initiating a human pregnancy by means of transfer to the uterus of a human female for the treatment of human infertility. A pregnancy shall not be initiated with the intention of deliberately destroying the embryo for scientific research. Neither shall the embryo be gestated to the fetal stage for purposes of destroying the fetus in order to harvest tissue stem cells for research. No person or entity shall intentionally or knowingly transfer or attempt to transfer an embryo into a human uterus that is not the product of fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm.(c) It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to intentionally or knowingly: (1) Create or attempt to create a human-animal hybrid; (2) Transfer or attempt to transfer a human embryo into a nonhuman womb; (3) Transfer or attempt to transfer a nonhuman embryo into a human womb; (4) Transport or receive for any purpose a human-animal hybrid or any product derived from such hybrid.(d) Nothing in this section prohibits any of the following: (1) Research involving the use of transgenic animal models containing human genes; (2) Xenotransplantation of human organs, tissues, or cells into recipient animals, including animals at any stage of development prior to birth, so long as the xenotransplantation does not violate a prohibition in division (c) of this section; (3) An individual from receiving organs, tissues, or cells delivered from outside of this state. 19-7-62. No person or entity shall give or receive valuable consideration, offer to give or receive valuable consideration, or advertise for the giving or receiving of valuable consideration for the provision of gametes or in vitro human embryos. This Code section shall not apply to regulate or prohibit the procurement of gametes for the treatment of infertility being experienced by the patient from whom the gametes are being derived. 19-7-63. The in vitro human embryo shall be given an identification by the facility for use within the medical facility. Records shall be maintained that identify the donors associated with the in vitro human embryo, and the confidentiality of such records shall be maintained as required by law. 19-7-64. (a) A living in vitro human embryo is a biological human being who is not the property of any person or entity. The fertility physician and the medical facility that employs the physician owe a high duty of care to the living in vitro human embryo. Any contractual provision identifying the living in vitro embryo as the property of any party shall be null and void. The in vitro human embryo shall not be intentionally destroyed for any purpose by any person or entity or through the actions of such person or entity. (b) An in vitro human embryo that fails to show any sign of life over a 36 hour period outside a state of cryopreservation shall be considered no longer living. 19-7-65 A. Any person, employer or entity, whether public or private, has the right not to participate in, and no person, employer or entity, whether public or private, shall be required to participate in any health care service that violates its conscience. No person, employer or entity, whether public or private, shall be held civilly or criminally liable, discriminated against, dismissed, demoted, or in any way prejudiced or damaged because of a refusal for any reason to participate in any health care service that violates its conscience. B. For purposes of this code section: (a) "Conscience" means religious, moral or ethical principles. (b) "Health care service" means any phase of patient medical care, treatment or procedure, including, but not limited to, the following: patient referral, counseling, therapy, testing, diagnosis or prognosis, research, instruction, prescribing, dispensing or administering any device, drug, or medication, surgery, or any other care, treatment or procedure. (c) "Participate" means to counsel, advise, provide, perform, assist in, refer for, admit for purposes of providing, participate in providing, pay, contract for, or otherwise arrange for the payment of, in whole or in part any health care service or any form of such service. 19-7-66. In the interest of reducing the risk of complications for both the mother and the transferred in vitro human embryos, including the risk of preterm birth associated with higher-order multiple gestations, a person or entity performing in vitro fertilization shall limit the number of in vitro human embryos created in a single cycle to the number to be transferred in that cycle in accord with Code Section 19-7-67. 19-7-67. (a) Where a woman under age 40 is to receive treatment using her own eggs or embryos created using her own eggs, whether fresh or previously cryopreserved, at the time of transfer no person or entity shall transfer more than two embryos in any treatment cycle, regardless of the procedure used. (b) Where a woman age 40 or over is to receive treatment using her own eggs or embryos created using her own eggs, whether fresh or previously cryopreserved, at the time of transfer no person or entity shall transfer more than three embryos in any treatment cycle, regardless of the procedure used. (c) Where a woman is to receive treatment using donated eggs or adopted embryos, no person or entity shall transfer more than two donated eggs or two adopted embryos in any treatment cycle, regardless of the woman's age at the time of transfer and regardless of the procedure used. 19-7-68. In disputes arising between any parties regarding the in vitro human embryo, the judicial standard for resolving such disputes shall be the best interest of the in vitro human embryo. 19-7-69. All facilities providing assisted reproductive technologies shall, at least 24 hours prior to obtaining a signed contract for services, provide patients with informed consent as required by law and obtain a signed disclosure form before services commence. In addition to medical risks and information on outcome and success rates, the informed consent materials shall state in plain language the parental rights and duties of the donors, as well as their legal rights and duties regarding the disposition of in vitro human embryos that were not transferred due to either of the fertility patient's death, divorce, abandonment, or dispute over the custody of the in vitro human embryo. 19-7-70. Nothing in this article shall be construed to affect conduct relating to abortion as provided in Chapter 12 of Title 16; provided, however, that nothing in this article shall be construed or implied to recognize any independent right to abortion under the laws of this state. 19-7-71. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article to the contrary, nothing in this article shall be construed to create or recognize any independent right to engage in the practice of in vitro fertilization or to create in vitro human embryos by any means. 19-7-72. (a) Any person or entity that violates any provision of this article and derives a pecuniary gain from such violation shall be fined not less than $500.00 nor more than $1,000.00."Life is cheap." (b) Any violation of this article shall constitute unprofessional conduct pursuant to Code Section 43-34-37 and shall result in sanctions increasing in severity from censure to temporary suspension of license to permanent revocation of license. (c) Any violation of this article may be the basis for denying an application for, denying an application for the renewal of, or revoking any license, permit, certificate, or any other form of permission required to practice or engage in a trade, occupation, or profession. (d) Any violation of this article by an individual in the employ and under the auspices of a licensed health care facility to which the management of said facility consents, knows, or should know may be the basis for denying an application for, denying an application for the renewal of, temporarily suspending, or permanently revoking any operational license, permit, certificate, or any other form of permission required to operate a medical or health care facility." SECTION 3. This Act shall become effective upon its approval by the Governor or upon its becoming law without such approval. SECTION 4. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.Let's see what the babyeaters think about all of this...From the very aptly named ScaryMommy.com:'Personhood' Bills May Restrict Access To IVF Treatments I understand they also own the domain name ScaredShitlessBabies.com but have no plans to develop the site...Casey Berna had always dreamed of having a large family. When she and her husband started the process, she had no idea the challenges they would face in trying to meet that goal. Following her daughter’s birth through intrauterine insemination (IUI), Berna spent the next seven years trying to give her some siblings.Let me help the morally obtuse (and those who make boatloads of cash from killing kids in this way) read the next paragraph.

Thirty-four embryos (kids), five miscarriages (kids), three rounds of in vitro fertilization (IVF)(Wait. Are the 39 dead children just mentioned included in this?) , two IUIs (kids), one frozen embryo (kid) transfer (FET), and zero viable (Even I, Your Humble Narrator, can't figure out what that word means. But I do know one thing - somebody got paid a lot of money for it. - F.G.) pregnancies later, Berna closed the chapter of her search to build her family with her own genetics.Berna and her husband are part of the 1 in 8 couples who will face infertility in their lifetimes. Like millions of other families, Berna was able to try to grow her family thanks to advances made by reproductive medicine. While assisted reproductive technology has helped those with infertility achieve their reproductive goals, these advancements are currently under threat by state and federal “personhood” bills.The big lie these unfortunate couples are swallowing is this: "It is ok to create a whole bunch of children for yourselves, and destroy all of those still alive after you get pregnant. Save one."Or, "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Ha-ha-ha."Of course, life is much, much easier if you don't think about all the consequences of your actions.Death, however, is a bit a bitch when it comes to consequences.Since 2008, at least 10 bills have been introduced at the state level that look to define human life starting at the moment of conception. Staunch opposition from the infertility community, who fear defining personhood jeopardizes reproductive medicine, has defeated each and every bill at the state level.

Now, with two personhood bills introduced this year at the federal level, infertility advocates are gearing up once again to fight for their right to build a family.

***

In 2009, Nadya Suleman, better known as “Octomom,” gave birth to eight children through IVF after 12 embryos were transferred into her uterus. This practice, an extreme departure from the typical standard of care, resulted in her doctor losing his medical license and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine tightening its guidelines for embryo transfers.It also caught the attention of lawmakers in Georgia, some 2,000 miles away from Suleman’s home state of California.

That March, two months after Suleman gave birth, the “Ethical Treatment of Human Embryos Act” was introduced in Georgia’s legislature. The bill, which set to limit the number of embryos Georgia physicians could implant in a given cycle, also included language set to define personhood. This bill was not the first attempt to establish personhood. In 2008, Colorado included a ballot initiative which would give an embryo rights from the moment of conception. The Georgia bill, however, was one of the first to add personhood language into a different piece of legislation.“In the language of the bill was a very clear sentence that basically said that inherently the embryo was a human life in and of itself and had its own rights beyond that of the parents,” Andrew Toledo, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist in Atlanta, Georgia, told The Mighty. “It was the devil in the details, but it was there. It was really their attempt to sneak personhood into a bill,” he said.INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"Personhood bills are largely thought of as a way of restricting abortions and challenging the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade. Experts, however, warn that extending rights to embryos will limit those practicing and those seeking infertility treatment.INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"

Advocating for patients and physicians in Oklahoma, targeted as the state most likely to pass a personhood bill, is Eli Reshef, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist in Oklahoma City.“Over the years of fighting personhood legislation, I realized that many of the supporters of personhood legislation are poorly informed about the unintended consequences of such legislation,” Reshef said. “Giving embryos the same rights as adults — the cornerstone of such legislation and a clear effort to outlaw abortions — creates various situations that place the practice of IVF at risk.”INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"Reshef said only 30% of embryos will be born as babies; the rest will either miscarry or fail to implant. Without the ability to consent to assisted reproductive technology, there are dozens of scenarios where embryos that have yet to be implanted could be deemed at risk.That is a 70% kill rate of the children they decide to "use". How many more are kept frozen until their parents decide to throw them away?

“It’s going to prevent us from doing IVF because no lab tech in their right mind will be willing to stand the risk of being accused of murder if they drop a dish with embryos in the lab, inadvertently,” he added.INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"Beyond shutting down IVF practices, personhood bills would change how reproductive endocrinologists practice medicine, said Toledo, who’s part of the coalition of physicians who fought Georgia’s personhood bill, adding: “We would freeze a lot more eggs unfertilized, and we would only fertilize the eggs we hoped we were going to transfer. It would lower pregnancy rates, because you have less options now, and it would create more cost for patients because they would have to go through more cycles to be successful.”INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"Should a personhood bill become law, advances in IVF would be set back decades, according to Toledo, and physicians would be required to rely on techniques used in the early ’80s when IVF first came to the U.S. Instead of joining sperm and egg in the lab, more physicians would revert to gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) — a surgical procedure where eggs are removed from a woman’s ovary and placed, along with sperm, in the fallopian tubes, thus increasing the rate of ectopic and tubal pregnancies.INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"

Even ectopic pregnancies — nonviable pregnancies that occur outside of the uterus and threaten the life of the mother — raise questions from reproductive physicians. “What about ectopic pregnancies that are viable and place the pregnant person’s health at risk, yet surgical or medical intervention may be construed as killing a person?” Reshef asked.INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"These questions and more remain unanswered by current personhood bills, many of which are only a few sentences long and lack explicit protections for those seeking IVF.INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"It’s unlikely a personhood bill could include satisfactory language protecting those seeking or practicing IVF from prosecution, said Barbara Collura, the president and CEO of Resolve: The National Infertility Association. “I have never seen any carved out protection for IVF in a personhood legislation that actually worked,” she added, “but I will tell you that at the state level when we’ve seen legislators try and amend or draft it, it is extremely difficult.”INSTANT TRANSLATION: "Those motherfuckers are gonna cost us millions!"In 2012, Virginia, where Collura lives, tried to pass HB1, its own version of a personhood bill. “The backstory on that was that a chair on a key committee had done IVF, so there was an attempt to carve out IVF,” Collura told The Mighty. But despite an attempt to add protections, “the carve-out was completely inadequate.”Despite testimonies from those living with infertility and members of Resolve, HB1 passed committee. “It’s callous and unfair to take legislation aimed at those who don’t want children to devastatingly affect pro-family infertility patients’ rights to treat their disease,” Whitney Anderson, who testified against Virginia’s bill, told The Mighty. “I didn’t choose to be infertile. There is safe (For whom, Madame? - F.G.) and effective treatment available and I should be allowed access to the best standard of care. I was lucky enough to become a mother using IVF, and my heart hurts thinking about how that opportunity could be taken away.”After making it out of committee, HB1 died in a special vote on Virginia’s Senate floor.

***

There are currently two personhood bills pending at the federal level — H.R.586 “Sanctity of Human Life Act” sponsored by Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA) and H.R.681 “Life at Conception Act,” sponsored by Rep. Alexander Mooney (R-WV). While the bills have made little progress, their existence and support — 29 co-sponsors for H.R.586 and 62 co-sponsors for H.R.681 — have infertility advocates concerned.“Going through infertility for me was like being knocked down many times a day over and over, year after year and having to get back up each time knowing you’re about to get another punch to the gut,” Anderson said. “I can’t imagine being in the middle of an IVF cycle with all of my hopes and dreams wrapped up in that and then having to curtail the cycle, not to mention losing $10,000 to $15,000 that most people have to pay 100% out-of-pocket for. I would have been devastated.”Like I've been telling you, some ghouls are getting rich off this shit.Neither bill mentions any protections for those seeking or providing infertility treatments. The only reference to in vitro fertilization comes in Rep Hice’s bill, H.R.586, which states that human life includes any method of fertilization including cloning, giving embryos created in the lab the same rights as their parents.“Infertility was one of the most challenging, physical and emotional events that my husband and I ever had to endure,” Berna said. “When it really comes down to it, we’re all just fighting for the freedom to make medical decisions with our doctors and not have politicians involved making stressful situations more stressful.”Nobody has the right to kill in order to get what they want.

While President Trump slams CNN as "fake news" on a regular basis, its historically progressive rival MSNBC has made remarkable strides among viewership. MSNBC has now beaten CNN among total primetime viewers for 29 of the last 30 weeks dating back to the start of 2017.CNN topped MSNBC among primetime total viewers from both July 2015 and July 2016 to date, but trails in 2017. Year to-date, MSNBC is the fastest growing cable network in total viewers, adding 865,000 sets of eyeballs while CNN has lost 128,000 viewers over the same time period, according to Nielsen's weekday primetime data. MSNBC's total viewership is up 78 percent compared to this time in 2016, which was an extremely newsworthy period that included the GOP convention and the Hillary Clinton email drama. (On the flip side, CNN brought in stellar ratings in July 2016, dominating MSNBC among convention coverage).MSNBC's primetime lineup is a major reason for the growth, as their lineup of Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell hold Trump accountable on a nightly basis. While CNN isn't exactly pro-Trump during primetime, Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon typically rely on interviews and guests, as opposed the MSNBC hosts who have been attracting viewers by opening shows with powerful left-leaning political monologues.The Hill media reporter and columnist Joe Concha told TheWrap he believes that "MSNBC is simply more transparent" about what they are in terms of its progressive tilt, and audiences respect that. He said having true opinion hosts during primetime "allows them to be more provocative" than CNN. In addition, the president isn't doing CNN any favors."Trump's attacks on CNN impact it in the sense that no Trump supporter will watch the network now based on preconceived notions alone," Concha said. "So, if liberals are watching MSNBC and conservatives and populists watch Fox News, there ain't much leftover for CNN."As a result, MSNBC trails only Fox News in primetime total viewers among all of cable for the year, beating powerhouse networks such as TNT, AMC, ESPN, HGTV and USA. MSNBC is now on target to average 2 million viewers in primetime for the fifth consecutive month in July, while CNN has never had a streak that long in its history.Historian Andrew Tyndall, who monitors all-things television news for his website Tyndall Report, thinks that MSNBC is picking up viewers who are giving up broadcast nightly newscasts in favor of more fiery opinions found on cable."The most important ratings trend this year has been the overall increase in the total cable news audience for all three channels combined. Simultaneously, there has been a reduction for the broadcast networks' nightly newscasts, so the total TV news audience may be stable overall, with a switch in preference from broadcast to cable," Tyndall told TheWrap.Tyndall continued: "This makes sense in the highly charged political atmosphere of the first six months of the Trump Administration, since cable news tends to be more politically oriented, whereas broadcast news is more general in scope."But MSNBC is thriving beyond primetime, posting its most-watched month ever during weekdays from 9 a.m. through 5 p.m. ET in June. MSNBC is on pace to beat CNN in July in the dayside category for the first monthly win since October 2012."Everyone is feeling good about dayside. Our team is working really hard and we have the full support of NBC News. You can see that in our reporting and we're glad our viewers see it too. We're excited to have the best month ever in nearly 5 years," an MSNBC insider told TheWrap.Talk about burying the lead! Check this out!Someone at MSNBC read a book?'Morning Joe' Compares Trump to Lord Voldemort (Video)

I humbly apologize for the hyperbole, kiddies. The title of this post is pure nonsense.Dred Scott was allowed to live because his "owner" valued his life at least a little.Charlie isn't even a piece of meat to those people.Charlie Gard got the death penalty, you know.TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

The story was posted early on Tuesday and the headline was alarming: “The latest brain study examined 111 former NFL players. Only one didn’t have CTE.”

That was from the Washington Post. The New York Times had special graphics, and this line: “A neuropathologist has examined the brains of 111 players – and 110 were found to have CTE, the degenerative disease linked to repeated blows to the head.”

Pretty scary, and social media chimed in:

“The beginning of the end for football…”

“When will the NFL stop burying their heads in the sand?”

“Will football as we know it be changed?”

“Duh. This is what happens to brains that get smashed 1,000s of Xs.”

Democrats in Congress offered a press release with this statement: “We know that there is a direct relationship between football and CTE, and we cannot afford to wait to take substantive action to protect players of all ages from the risks of head trauma in contact sports.”What? Ground Chuck Schumer is a fucking moronic fascist and not a scientist? Well, I'll be hornswoggled!

It’s great that elected officials are paying close attention to player safety. But the “direct relationship between football and CTE,” while backed by strong evidence, isn’t yet universally accepted in the scientific community. And this latest study, while important, doesn’t move us a lot farther in what we know about the effects of football on later-life clinical symptoms.

“This study adds little new science,” says Jeffrey Kutcher, the national director of the Sports Neurology Clinic. “It provides a larger number of cases and a better description of their problems during life. Other than that, there isn’t much here that we didn’t already know.”

“With trauma and CTE, nothing has been proven,” said Lil-Naz Hazrati, a neuropathologist who studies athletes’ brains in Canada. “That link is very circumstantial. We’ve taken a bunch of people and the only thing we have out of there is blows to the head.”

Even Chris Nowinski, who helped on the new study, tweeted on Tuesday: “To my football buddies: today’s study doesn’t mean your risk of CTE is 87%. Biased sample. But if you have symptoms, see a doc – they can help.

The study itself admits “several limitations.” It explains: “public awareness of a possible link between repetitive head trauma and CTE may have motivated players and their families with symptoms and signs of brain trauma to participate in this research. Therefore, caution must be used in interpreting the high frequency of CTE in this sample, and estimates of prevalence cannot be concluded or implied from this sample.”

Does this mean the study isn’t important? Not at all. This new frontier of research is making the sport safer and making parents and athletes more aware of risks. But the “public awareness” of troubling stories far outpaces the public awareness of reassuring stories, and that creates an imbalance in conventional wisdom. Even political journalists, usually fixated on Donald Trump and Russia, tweeted about Tuesday’s study.

Now consider another study earlier this month from the exact same publication, the Journal of the American Medical Association. The title: “Association of Playing High School Football With Cognition and Mental Health Later in Life.” It studied a group of nearly 4,000 former athletes who played football in the 1950s, and it found this: “There was no statistically or clinically significant harmful association between playing football in high school and increased cognitive impairment or depression later in life, on average.”

Granted, this study also has its limitations. Football in the 1950s is far different from football now. The athletes are faster, and larger, and the hits are therefore harder. That matters. But both studies should be considered as we move closer to the understanding of football’s risks. As the latter study states: “Without population-level samples, it is difficult to estimate the base rate of long-term dysfunction among professional football players, much less among high school players.”

Dr. Mark Herceg, the Westchester County Commissioner of Mental Health and Concussion Task Force chairman, added this in an interview Tuesday: “It would be great to study the brains of all the famous musicians and actors who killed themselves and battled depression/addiction/medication. We need comparisons to the general population and others with mental illness to really tease this issue out and make better assumptions.”

The JAMA study on football players from the 1950s has 16,000 views in three weeks on the journal’s site, while it’s safe to say Tuesday’s news received far more views just from Twitter in a single day. Dr. Ann McKee, the leading author of the CTE study, was interviewed on ESPN. The other study’s authors were not.

CTE is serious and worth further attention. But for every major news story you see on CTE, there are several studies that aren’t as widely circulated.

Headlines travel fast. Science takes time.

* Not to mention Globalwarmingcoolingtemperaturechangenuclearwintericecapsmelting-acidrainoverpopulationbigfoot-socialismworks!

Shylo Kaena Akuna harassed the seal in April 2016 at Kauai’s Salt Pond Beach Park, a prosecutor said. KHON-TV reported previously that bystanders recorded video showing a man wading into the water, swinging at the endangered animal and possibly throwing sand at it...

Teen pleads not guilty in fatal crash recorded on Instagram - KCBD.comA California teenager pleaded not guilty Wednesday to felony charges of vehicular manslaughter and drunken driving after she lost control of her car while livestreaming on Instagram and recording a crash that killed her younger sister.Obdulia Sanchez, 18, appeared via remote camera in Merced County Superior Court, dressed in yellow inmate garb. She pleaded not guilty to all six counts and responded a "little bit" when the judge asked whether she understood the charges against her.Ramnik Samrao, a public defender who represents Sanchez, said the teen believes she killed her sister."Anybody can say very easily that she is responsible for the death. She believes that too. She said multiple times, 'I killed my sister, I killed my sister,'" Samrao said outside court. "There's no doubt about that, but whether there was a crime committed, that's a separate story."The judge set bail at $560,000.Sanchez was driving the car on Friday when it veered onto the shoulder of a road about 75 miles (121 kilometers) northwest of Fresno.Authorities said she overcorrected, causing the vehicle to swerve and overturn into a field, ejecting and killing her 14-year-old sister, Jacqueline Sanchez.Prosecutors say the video, which includes images of her dancing to music while driving and taking her hands from the steering wheel, will be a key piece of evidence in the case.In a statement, Merced County Chief Deputy District Attorney Harold Nutt had called the behavior "disturbing and shocking.""It reflects some depravity and some stupidity and that sort of thing. It's shocking behavior, no question about it," Nutt said outside court.He said Sanchez's blood alcohol content was 0.10. In California, .01 percent blood alcohol content is illegal for those under 21, said Jessica Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for the Department of Motor Vehicles.Sanchez was convicted of reckless driving in 2015 for driving without a license when she was 14, Gonzalez said.After a gap in the livestream of the crash, the driver is seen leaning over the girl's body, saying she was sorry. She said she expected to spend the rest of her life in prison but doesn't care."This is the last thing I wanted to happen, OK? ... Rest in peace, sweetie," the teen says. "If you don't survive, I'm so (expletive) sorry."Another 14-year-old girl suffered a leg injury in the crash.The six counts against Sanchez also include drunken driving resulting in injuries. Prosecutors say Sanchez could spend more than 13 years in state prison if convicted of all the charges.Her father, Nicandro Sanchez, has called it an unexplainable accident and said Obdulia had been in the custody of Child Protective Services the past two years.The girl who survived the crash said she wasn't mad at anyone and doesn't blame the driver.Instead, Manuela Seja blamed social media, which she said has taken over people's lives, television station KSEE in Fresno reported.Responsibility is a real bitch, madam, as everyone finds out eventually.

About Me

First of all, the word is SEX, not GENDER. If you are ever tempted to use the word GENDER, don't. The word is SEX! SEX! SEX! SEX! For example: "My sex is male." is correct.
"My gender is male." means nothing. Look it up.
What kind of sick neo-Puritan nonsense is this? Idiot left-fascists, get your blood-soaked paws off the English language. Hence I am choosing "male" under protest.